The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset with...

Welcome to the main forum of our site. Anything and everything to do with the Vancouver Canucks is dicussed and debated here.

Moderator: Referees

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby rockalt » Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:02 pm

Mondi wrote:Luongo was re-signed after getting lit up in back-to-back year by the Hawks.

IMO, he was never the same as a goalie in big games after '09 versus the Hawks. Yet, Gillis gave a player coming off two bad playoffs and in his 30s a 12-year-deal.


Not to nitpick as I agree with general sentiment but Luongo signed the deal in 2009, after getting lit up ONCE by the Blackhawks.

I agree though that he was never the same goalie after Game 6 against the 'Hawks. It was not only player but franchise defining (Farhan's beloved 'mental fragility').

For me that was the turning point in Luongo's career when he went from being the next Roy/Brodeur to the next Cujo.

And what's insane about the whole thing is that it really came down to that one game. Luongo was actually fine the rest of the series. Yes he gave up 6 goals in game 2 of the series but he bounced back with tremendous performances in game 3 and 4 in Chicago. If you look back at that series, the Canucks were reverting to a defensive shell, relying on their superstar goalie to shut down the high octane Chicago offense. And he nearly put them up 3-1.

But game 6.... that was one of the most memorable games in Canucks history. It was the one game where the Canucks truly deserved to win and Luongo completely imploded. I couldn't believe my eyes, as I felt like Cloutier had been reincarnated in the form of our superstar goalie.

Luongo was spectacular in 2007 playoffs, completely blanked the Blues in the first round of the 2009 playoffs, and then the Blackhawks....

From that point forward, there 'bouts of inconsistency, unheralded shakiness.... the unflappable confidence/arrogance of being the best goalie of his generation was gone. I wonder what would have happened to this team, to Luongo if we didn't collide with the 'Hawks in '09.

So yes in short, the timing of the 12 year signing was a little suspect though not as suspect as it would have been in '10.
User avatar
rockalt
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 10:47 pm
Location: London

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Topper » Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:56 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Mondi wrote:Luongo was re-signed after getting lit up in back-to-back year by the Hawks.

IMO, he was never the same as a goalie in big games after '09 versus the Hawks. Yet, Gillis gave a player coming off two bad playoffs and in his 30s a 12-year-deal.


In his previous two playoffs Lou had a .929 sv%.

It was that contract (or one like it) that kept Lou from walking as a UFA.

That contract brought Lou's cap-hit down $1.5m from his previous contract and was hailed as a genius move.

No one even dreamed that the new CBA (2 years later) would turn that from a great contract to a bad one.

and now that the trade has happened, folks are raving about the great contract and cap hit Lungo has. :?
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Hockey Widow » Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:13 pm

Did you catch the presser in Florida. There was excitement, glee, praise upon praise, thrill and a ton of press interest.
The only HW the Canucks need
User avatar
Hockey Widow
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Strangelove » Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:18 pm

Topper wrote:and now that the trade has happened, folks are raving about the great contract and cap hit Lungo has. :?


Nope, folks are saying it was a great contract Gillis signed Luongo to.

Folks are saying the league then changed the rules, turning said great contract into a shitty one.
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Todd Bersnoozi » Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:24 pm

The Brown Knight wrote:Pre 2012 lock-out, Gillis was shopping Luongo and was looking for a rate of return that a superstar goalie would command. Burke offered him Luke Schenn and a 1st, and Gillis rightfully told Burkey to go [mod edit: juvenile ].


If that deal was true, we could of flipped Schenn for JVR. :(
User avatar
Todd Bersnoozi
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:14 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Wed Mar 05, 2014 6:33 pm

Hockey Widow wrote:Did you catch the presser in Florida. There was excitement, glee, praise upon praise, thrill and a ton of press interest.



Did you also hear the line where Roberto said he would bring the team to the playoffs ? Awesome shit there.

This is why I want to see 17 gone too. His interview after the Preds series was sickening. Two of the most arrogant players in the league and neither of them has won a cup. Time to re shape the team on and off the ice. Two down ( Roberto and Lappy) and two to go : the biter and the Yank.
Tell me how my ass tastes.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Uncle dans leg » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:01 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:
Hockey Widow wrote:Did you catch the presser in Florida. There was excitement, glee, praise upon praise, thrill and a ton of press interest.



Did you also hear the line where Roberto said he would bring the team to the playoffs ? Awesome shit there.

This is why I want to see 17 gone too. His interview after the Preds series was sickening. Two of the most arrogant players in the league and neither of them has won a cup. Time to re shape the team on and off the ice. Two down ( Roberto and Lappy) and two to go : the biter and the Yank.

I'm with you there Blob. 100%.

I didn't get to read Keslers interview after the preds series...what did he say?
nobody forks with...the jesus
User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Lethbridge AB

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Blob Mckenzie » Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:12 pm

The TSN guys asked him what Barry Trotz said to him in the handshake lineup. He said something to the effect that Trotz told him he had never seen anyone play that well in a series in his life and that he took the series over. Brutal honesty ?? I guess.... You'd never here Yzerman or Burnaby Joe talk like that and they are twice the player 17 is.

Last year someone asks him about going up against Thornton in the first round. He says its 2 elite players going head to head....blah blah blah. Why do i never hear Crosby or Toews or Zetterburg refer to themselves as elite ? Thats the first time I've heard a player describe HIMSELF as elite.

Good player, good contract...... arrogant prick.
Tell me how my ass tastes.
User avatar
Blob Mckenzie
CC Legend
 
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:34 pm
Location: Oakalla

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Uncle dans leg » Wed Mar 05, 2014 8:28 pm

Blob Mckenzie wrote:The TSN guys asked him what Barry Trotz said to him in the handshake lineup. He said something to the effect that Trotz told him he had never seen anyone play that well in a series in his life and that he took the series over. Brutal honesty ?? I guess.... You'd never here Yzerman or Burnaby Joe talk like that and they are twice the player 17 is.

Last year someone asks him about going up against Thornton in the first round. He says its 2 elite players going head to head....blah blah blah. Why do i never hear Crosby or Toews or Zetterburg refer to themselves as elite ? Thats the first time I've heard a player describe HIMSELF as elite.

Good player, good contract...... arrogant prick.

Yeah that's pretty bad.

Would love to see less weasels in canucks colours in the future. I've seen enough head snapping, yapping without scrapping and embarrassing bullshit by players on my favorite team to last a lifetime.
nobody forks with...the jesus
User avatar
Uncle dans leg
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Lethbridge AB

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Vader » Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:03 pm

Strangelove wrote:
Mondi wrote:
It was that contract (or one like it) that kept Lou from walking as a UFA.

That contract brought Lou's cap-hit down $1.5m from his previous contract and was hailed as a genius move.

No one even dreamed that the new CBA (2 years later) would turn that from a great contract to a bad one.


Disagree.

You NEVER give that kind a of a deal to a #1 goalie. Why? Because you can only ever have one at a time. Felix Potvin would have been a candidate for a contract like that in 94 if they existed at the time. Ditto guys like McLean, Ranford and others who petered out early. Imagine how that would have worked out?

Furthermore, everyone and their dog knew the front loading contracts were going to be history in the next CBA...when did Gillis think the CBA was expiring, 10 years later?

At the time, I would have far preferred to see Luongo get a seven year deal @ $7.5M per and I believe that would have gotten a deal done and the contract would have been much more movaeble. The fact that Gillis took the $2.2M cap savings on Loungo's deal and used it to bring in the likes of Ballard to be acquired was just an extra kick in the teeth
Vader
CC 2nd Team All-Star
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:37 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Strangelove » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Vader wrote:Disagree.

You NEVER give that kind a of a deal to a #1 goalie. Why? Because you can only ever have one at a time. Felix Potvin would have been a candidate for a contract like that in 94 if they existed at the time. Ditto guys like McLean, Ranford and others who petered out early. Imagine how that would have worked out?


Bullshit, Luongo was considered the best goaltender in the world at the time

... and there was a gentleman's agreement he would retire by age 40.

Even YOU are convinced he would be worth top dollar until around that age

... as your next quote proves:

Vader wrote:At the time, I would have far preferred to see Luongo get a seven year deal @ $7.5M per and I believe that would have gotten a deal done and the contract would have been much more movaeble


Well essentially they signed him to an 8 year deal at $7.1m per, so ummm.

Cap-hit @ $5.3m + no such thing as a Recapture Penalty = more movable than your idea.

Like I say though, the so-called "Luongo Rule" turned this contract from awesome to awful.

Vader wrote:Furthermore, everyone and their dog knew the front loading contracts were going to be history in the next CBA...when did Gillis think the CBA was expiring, 10 years later?


EVERYONE (and their dog) thought the new CBA would grandfather this in.

,
Last edited by Strangelove on Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
____
The Ring Leader
User avatar
Strangelove
CC Legend
 
Posts: 7340
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 1:13 pm

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby ukcanuck » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:21 pm

Is this the thread where we don't pee our pants about a directionless ship?

I'm sure that RD is happy today. Luggage eyes seems to be taking quite a beating...

I'm okay with the goaltending situation as it stands.
From what we know about luongo and Schneider is that when or if we get back to those high level big game pressure cookers again. It's not a lock that the goaltending will cave on us.

Both our two former tenders were rather tender in the mental fortitude department.
Both seem like great regular season players that can't win the big games and I wish them all the best :)

What do we have in Lack? Who knows, but there is a chance he won't stub his dink at the last minute...
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby ukcanuck » Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:23 pm

Oh and while are going all pear shaped about how great laluongo and Schneider were...

The solid defensive core of the team the last five years says hi -_-
User avatar
ukcanuck
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:04 am

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby Topper » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:00 am

Strangelove wrote:
Topper wrote:and now that the trade has happened, folks are raving about the great contract and cap hit Lungo has. :?


Nope, folks are saying it was a great contract Gillis signed Luongo to.

Folks are saying the league then changed the rules, turning said great contract into a shitty one.

Here yes, elsewhere on he web I'm right
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
 
Posts: 4782
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: The Dark Indian's $0.02: Am I the only one not upset wit

Postby dbr » Thu Mar 06, 2014 9:43 am

Strangelove wrote:Cap-hit @ $5.3m + no such thing as a Recapture Penalty = more movable than your idea.

Like I say though, the so-called "Luongo Rule" turned this contract from awesome to awful. .


I'm not so sure. Like I really am ambivalent on the subject but Jesus we're going to have dead cap space on the books until guys like Chris Tanev and Zack Kassian are at that age where you think long and hard about a contract with any significant term on it. Bo Horvat will probably have signed his last RFA deal before we're out from under this contract. So that's colouring my views a bit right now.

But anyway, I think the cap recapture rule probably scared away most teams that plan to continue to spend to the cap, but there are teams that don't necessarily fit that profile that went out and got goaltenders this year and there was never much credible information suggesting they had any interest in taking on a seven year commitment either.

A few years back I thought Luongo's deal was good because the threat of a goaltender worth much less than his cap hit was twice as far off in my mind as the reality has been. Who cares about a backup with a $5.3m cap hit when he makes $3m, or $1m, and is an asset to the loser franchises in the league, right?

That hasn't worked out and he's lost his starting job twice before his 35th birthday.

Nor does the cap benefit recapture rule explain the team's failure to anticipate the plethora of relatively cheap, relatively strong goaltending available and the resulting devaluation of the position. Nor for that matter the NTC that apparently stood in the way of past deals.

Ultimately I think the recapture rule was dirty pool on the part of the league, an attempt at sticking a thumb in the eye of GMs who didn't want to follow Gary's unwritten rules. But if you put that aside and just look at the effects the Luongo contract has had on this team I think you can make a compelling argument that it's the worst contract in team history (as I guess any retirement contract has plenty of potential to turn into).

I recall Mike Gillis saying at the time that goaltender was the perfect position for a lifetime deal, of course the Sedins had proposed 12 year deals for themselves at a similar cap hit around this time and been rebuffed by the team. What a difference that would have made in hindsight, giving the Sedins their retirement contracts and paying full value for an All Star goaltender on a medium term deal.
dbr
CC Hall of Fan Member
 
Posts: 2498
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:37 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Canucks Corner Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Groovypippin and 1 guest